Why BAD Photographers THINK They're Good

[r.harris1]

Hmm first two are too samey for me.
Wayne, Chris Packham and David tipling have some wonderful wildlife shots! Wow. Especially Wayne Levin. Need to look at those more.

Edward Westin is another I don't quite understand the draw.

Chema madoz is awesome work! Wow! I love that absract surreal style. Brilliant work need to spend more time looking at these images.

Nice list great to discover new inspiration. Thanks!

Absolutely! It would be great to see everyone's top 10 or top whatever. They're all quite different and it would be fun to discover new inspiration, as you say.

My list shifts around quite a bit depending on a variety of things. Fazal is on there because I saw his work in person in my local art museum and seeing it that way is so incredibly different than on the internet. The craft of printing and quite honestly, the art of curation is something to not underestimate, I think. Westin and Cameron are on there because I'm reading books on them so I've taken a different look at what they've done. I think Julia's portraits of Carlyle and the "unknown Italian guy" are great. I do agree that Julia and Fazal can get samey. Westin can too, but he was surprisingly diverse.

It may be that one image draws me to the rest of the photographer's work. For example Michael O'neil's portrait of Orson Welles I think is fantastic as is Ryan McGinley's MIA image.

Maybe it changes depending on whether I'm drinking whiskey or triple espressos at the time, you never know.

Anyway, it was a great exercise to come up with a "top 10".
[doublepost=1523722252][/doublepost]

Go to Antelope Canyon now! Today! The place is so stunning you cannot take a bad picture.

I am going to enjoy looking at these top 10 lists....

Yes, no one ever takes bad pictures there. It's just that there are so effing many of them! All. The. Same.

 

[redshifted]

Are you guys talking about Edward Weston? Personally, I prefer Brett's work.

 

[kenoh]

Absolutely! It would be great to see everyone's top 10 or top whatever. They're all quite different and it would be fun to discover new inspiration, as you say.

My list shifts around quite a bit depending on a variety of things. Fazal is on there because I saw his work in person in my local art museum and seeing it that way is so incredibly different than on the internet. The craft of printing and quite honestly, the art of curation is something to not underestimate, I think. Westin and Cameron are on there because I'm reading books on them so I've taken a different look at what they've done. I think Julia's portraits of Carlyle and the "unknown Italian guy" are great. I do agree that Julia and Fazal can get samey. Westin can too, but he was surprisingly diverse.

It may be that one image draws me to the rest of the photographer's work. For example Michael O'neil's portrait of Orson Welles I think is fantastic as is Ryan McGinley's MIA image.

Maybe it changes depending on whether I'm drinking whiskey or triple espressos at the time, you never know.

Anyway, it was a great exercise to come up with a "top 10".
[doublepost=1523722252][/doublepost]
Yes, no one ever takes bad pictures there. It's just that there are so effing many of them! All. The. Same.

Makes me laugh, I googled Weston and saw a quote of his - "Anything more than 500 yards away from the car just isn't photogenic" ha ha ha...
[doublepost=1523726295][/doublepost]

Are you guys talking about Edward Weston? Personally, I prefer Brett's work.

yeah but Brett was a bit of a dirtbird too with the shots of the ladies taken underwater from the purpose built perving box remember? lol... he did do some amazing abstract landscapes though!

 

[r.harris1]

Makes me laugh, I googled Weston and saw a quote of his - "Anything more than 500 yards away from the car just isn't photogenic" ha ha ha...

I see I've spelled Edward's name wrong but I have to say in my defense that I've been booking business travel the last couple of days and staying at...you guessed it...Westin hotels!

 

[kenoh]

I see I've spelled Edward's name wrong but I have to say in my defense that I've been booking business travel the last couple of days and staying at...you guessed it...Westin hotels!

Ha ha ha... Superb...

 

[bunnspecial]

Makes me laugh, I googled Weston and saw a quote of his - "Anything more than 500 yards away from the car just isn't photogenic" ha ha ha...

I was oogling a Sinar in the camera store not too long ago, and commented that if I bought it, I might have to cut Weston's 500 yards down to 50 yards or even less.

The point was decided for me, though. I'd decided to buy it this past Monday, and apparently I'd missed it walking out by about 15 minutes. It was too good of a deal at $400 including a 150mm Rodenstock that worth probably $200-300 by itself. The Sinar tripod it was an extra $125, but apparently the person who bought it agreed with me that it was a no-brainer add on to the purchase.

Tripod included, that was probably a solid 40lbs or better of camera. If you wanted to haul it out into the field(which was my big hang up, since I primarily shoot LF outside) you'd need a helper or a pack mule to get it anywhere. At the end of the day, I'm better off with my Tiltall and either my Speed Graphic or my rickety old B&J field camera. It's a shame that the long-time "budget" field camera favorite-the Tachihara-isn't made anymore and is still rising in price.

 

[kenoh]

I was oogling a Sinar in the camera store not too long ago, and commented that if I bought it, I might have to cut Weston's 500 yards down to 50 yards or even less.

The point was decided for me, though. I'd decided to buy it this past Monday, and apparently I'd missed it walking out by about 15 minutes. It was too good of a deal at $400 including a 150mm Rodenstock that worth probably $200-300 by itself. The Sinar tripod it was an extra $125, but apparently the person who bought it agreed with me that it was a no-brainer add on to the purchase.

Tripod included, that was probably a solid 40lbs or better of camera. If you wanted to haul it out into the field(which was my big hang up, since I primarily shoot LF outside) you'd need a helper or a pack mule to get it anywhere. At the end of the day, I'm better off with my Tiltall and either my Speed Graphic or my rickety old B&J field camera. It's a shame that the long-time "budget" field camera favorite-the Tachihara-isn't made anymore and is still rising in price.

My god you like your exotics!

 

[bunnspecial]

My god you like your exotics!

Well, every format has "cult" cameras. In 35mm, it's Leica. In medium format, it's Hasselblad. Sinar is pretty much where it is for LF.

Since I have a Leica and a Hasselblad, I figured I needed to get in on Sinars in the other format I shoot

BTW, I have little use for the Leica(mine is a prewar IIIc) but love my Hasselblad. Use it as I was a few weeks ago with a Metz "potato masher" and you can really get some funny looks.

In all honesty, though, if I'm going to take the weight penalty with LF I'd rather move up to 8x10. I REALLY can't justify that, though-it's too expensive to shoot and I don't really even take full advantage of 4x5.